8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 1/4

To tweet about Mr Speaker, or not to tweet?

Jeremy Travers, Thursday 10 November, 2011.

Yesterday in the Victorian Legislative Assembly, we saw a bit of controversy as Speaker Ken

Smith demanded an apology from a Labor MP over a tweet that reflected on his position as

Speaker the previous day.

Martin Foley, the member for Albert Park, tweeted: 

speaker smith new low in abandoning any parliamentary standards in #springst by allowing

sneaky Libs/Nats avoid scrunity on #RyanTilleygate

The first six pages of yesterday’s proof Hansard feature the Speaker demanding an apology

for the tweet and points of order, claiming that this would be a dangerous precedent for

Speakers to take, as the tweet was not made inside the chamber. Respectfully, I mustdisagree that the precedent would be dangerous.

In the parliamentary context, there are two issues that must be considered: firstly, did this

tweet constitute a reflection on the Speaker’s performance? And secondly, what is the

appropriate penalty for such a reflection?

I believe that the tweet itself constituted a reflection on the Chair. There is some debate as

to whether or not parliamentary sanctions can be applied for this tweet. In my view, there is

no difference between this tweet and comments that members of Parliament make in the

press that are equally critical of the Speaker’s performance. A publication by the New South

Wales Legislative Assembly, entitled Decisions from the Chair , provide rulings by Speakers

about reflections on the Chair in the press. Mr Speaker Clyne and Mr Speaker Kelly both

ruled in 1943 and 1984 respectfully that “maligning the Speaker through the press was

unchivalrous and a violation of the traditions of parliamentary procedure”.

From a federal perspective, House of Representatives Practice provides the reader with

examples of the Speaker’s actions being criticised by members in the press and the

Speaker’s (and in some cases, the House’s) reactions to each of those reflections. I will

provide three more recent examples of these cases. This information is taken from pages

196-197 of the Practice.

In February 1987, Madam Speaker Child informed the House that she had become aware of 

reported remarks critical of her by Wilson Tuckey following his suspension from Parliament

the previous day. Although Mr Tuckey offered an apology in writing, the Speaker gave

precedence to the matter under the standing order relating to privilege. The Leader of the

House then moved a motion in the following words:

That this House finds that remarks made by the honourable member for O'Connor yesterday

are a serious reflection on the character of the Speaker; contain an accusation of partiality in

8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 2/4

the discharge of her duty, and therefore constitute a contempt of the House; and suspends

the honourable member for O'Connor from the service of the House for seven sitting days,

including today.

After debate, the motion was agreed to with the House dividing: 77 ayes to 60 noes.

[Hansard , 24.2.1987, p. 580-7]

In August 1986, Madam Speaker Child informed the House that she was made aware of 

reported remarks made by Ian Sinclair, then Leader of the National Party, in connection with

the custody of documents in possession of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which

were to be placed in the custody of the Speaker and the President of the Senate. Upon

request from the Speaker, Mr Sinclair apologised. He further explained that the remarks

were not meant to be about the Speaker but about Parliament itself and his view that

Parliament was an unsuitable repository for documents containing unresolved allegations.

On 16 September, the Speaker again referred to the matter. She had examined the

transcript of Mr Sinclair’s remarks and the statement he made to the House on 22 August

and was convinced that Mr Sinclair’s remarks constituted a “breach of the privileges” of the

House and that the subsequent apology constituted a contempt. After Mr Sinclair addressed

the House, the Deputy Speaker moved a censure motion in Mr Sinclair. The motion was

withdrawn by leave of the House after Mr Sinclair acknowledged his remarks, withdrew

them and apologised again.

And lastly, in October 1990, Mr Speaker McLeay made a statement in relation to remarks

reportedly made by an MP outside the House which amounted to a reflection on the Chair.

The concerned member withdrew the reflection and apologised to the Speaker.

So, it is well known that in Westminster parliaments, Speakers take reflections on their

performance and conduct seriously, whether the remarks were made in Parliament or

outside Parliament.

Yesterday, Mr Speaker Smith drew the attention of the Legislative Assembly to the tweet

and asked for an apology. He did not mention the specific tweet, stating that he did not wish

to have it recorded in Hansard . The Speaker was within his rights to ask for an apology;given the fact that he concluded that it was offensive to him and his position as Speaker. In

other words, it was a reflection on him as Speaker.

I found out about the incident, ironically, via Twitter. The ABC’s Josie Taylor posed an

interesting question by asking: 

Does this mean the media can't scrutinise/criticise speaker ken smiths behaviour on twitter?

Or js mps? #springst

I replied: 

8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 3/4

@josietaylor Not sure about journalists, but the Speaker's actions can't be criticised apart

from a dissent motion or no-confidence motion.

There is a precedent in House of Representatives Practice (on page 196) where on 15 May

1964, a radio journalist during a broadcast accused Mr Speaker McLeay (different from the

Mr Speaker McLeay in the 1990 example above) of partiality in his duties and suggested that

he ‘analyse the word “impartiality” before the next sittings’. The Speaker found that the

remarks were a grave reflection on his character. It was determined that, as the winter

break was approaching at the end of that day, a reference to the Committee on Privileges

would be unsatisfactory.

It was decided that more immediate action should be taken—unless a complete and full

apology and retraction were made over the same broadcasting stations, the journalist’s

press pass should be withdrawn and, with the concurrence of the President of the Senate,

the journalist should be denied admittance. The Speaker summoned the journalist to his

office and the journalist admitted his mistake and the seriousness of his offence. The

 journalist was informed that a breach of privilege could have been committed by the

broadcasting stations and he requested the Speaker not to press the matter in relation to

the stations and that the journalist himself was to blame. The journalist agreed to broadcast

a retraction and apology that night and to be repeated the following morning, following the

clearance of the script with the Speaker.

As that was in 1964, I am not sure how Speakers would deal with such statements if they

were made on television, radio and social media today. Some might argue that the Speakershould take appropriate action as to protect his office while others might argue that any

interference from the Speaker might constitute censorship. My own personal view is that

this matter should be examined on a case by case basis. But it is unclear what action, if any,

could be taken against a journalist who is not part of the parliamentary press gallery.

In my response to Ms Taylor (on Twitter, as quoted above), I stated that the Speaker’s

actions can’t be criticised apart from a dissent motion or a motion of no -confidence. The

shadow parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, Colin Brooks MP, tweeted 

the following in response to my tweet:

@JeremyTravers @josietaylor that's right for MPs in the chamber but what about comments

made outside parliament?

In my response, consisting of two tweets due to the 140 character limit, I said that I was not

sure of the Victorian practice but there was a case (in the 1980’s) that I remember in the

New South Wales Legislative Assembly where the Speaker demanded the withdrawal of 

remarks that a member had made about the Speaker’s conduct via the press. 

In terms of the second question I posed earlier, as to what the appropriate penalty could be

for reflecting on the Chair, I am of the view that the penalty should reflect the nature of the

8/3/2019 To Tweet About Mr Speaker or Not to Tweet

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/to-tweet-about-mr-speaker-or-not-to-tweet 4/4

offence. Most of the time, the Speaker would call for the reflection to be withdrawn and an

apology to be made. That is reasonable in majority of cases where the Speaker has been

reflected on. If the member refuses to apologise and withdraw, the Speaker is entitled to

have that member removed from the Chamber for a period of time defined by the standing

orders or name the member for refusing to obey an instruction by the Speaker. Naming amember has the effect of suspending that member for 24 hours.

As I wrote earlier, I am of the view that there is no difference between a remark made by a

member on Twitter that is critical of the Speaker and a statement by a member in the press

that is equally critical. At the same time, I believe that the Standing Orders Committee

needs to examine the use of Twitter by members of Parliament inside the Chamber.

Having examined the first six pages of the Hansard proof, there seems to be a suggestion

that it was more appropriate to raise this matter in private as opposed to it being raised in

Parliament. I believe that the Speaker was quite right to raise the matter in Parliament for

two reasons: firstly, because under the Westminster system, the Speaker cannot defend

himself anywhere else but the House itself; and secondly, it establishes a precedent on the

use of social media by members to criticise the Speaker.

At the end of the day, the tweet by Mr Foley constituted a reflection on the Chair and an

apology should have been given. There are parliamentary ways of dealing with the Speaker’s

performance and conduct—such as a dissent motion, a censure motion and a no-confidence

motion. While these motions are likely to be defeated on party lines, these motions at least

provide an opportunity to be debated. I look forward to the recommendations of theStanding Orders Committee on this matter.